Many have difficulty accepting in faith Jesus’ word in John 6 and at the Last Supper, regarding the Holy Eucharist (involving His true Body). Likewise, the doubting disciples in John 6 said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” (6:60; RSV) They wouldn’t accept His teaching, because (so they claimed) it was too “hard” for them.

But we don’t have to understand everything to the nth degree. Christianity requires belief in a number of things difficult to grasp and accept, but we accept them based on the authority of revelation.

Some argue that Jesus was frequently misunderstood, and usually didn’t correct people’s misperceptions. Thus, they contend that John 6 is an instance of Jesus was merely speaking metaphorically (which His hearers didn’t grasp).

But it's untrue that Jesus didn’t correct misunderstandings. He did on many recorded occasions; for example: John 3:1-15 (Nicodemus and the meaning of “born again”), Matthew 13:36-51 (explanation of the parable of the tares), Matthew 15:10-20 (what defiles a man), Matthew 16:5-12 (metaphorical use of leaven), Matthew 17:9-13 (parallel of Elijah and John the Baptist), Matthew 19:24-26 (camel through the eye of a needle and rich men), Mark 4:33-34 and Luke 8:9-15 (meaning of parables in general), Luke 24:13-27 (Jesus’ teaching about Himself to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus), John 4:31-34 (metaphorical meaning of meat), John 8:21-32 (His own divinity), John 10:1-9 (parable of the Good Shepherd), and John 11:8-15 (sleep as symbolic of death).

Another example is the entire Chapter 16 of John, where the disciples did not understand, and Jesus explained at length to clarify, and then they did understand. In John 6 it was again disciples who were questioning:

John 6:60-61, 66 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” [61] But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? . . .” [66] After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.

Yet Jesus did not explain; He merely repeated with more force. And it is the only recorded instance (other than Judas) of any of His disciples ceasing to follow Him. The plausible reason is because He knew that they were questioning and would not have accepted any further explanation anyway. We know this from hard evidence:

John 6:64 “But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.

This theme appears elsewhere in John, too (see 8:27, 43-47; 12:37-40). Jesus is emphasizing that some people don’t “understand” because they don’t want to: they lack faith; they can’t “bear” His word, and they are burdened with undue skepticism and led by the devil, the father of lies. This is what happened in John 6 with those disciples who left Him. It’s a theme in the Synoptic Gospels as well (see Matt 13:13, 19; Lk 5:21-22).

Jesus often explained and corrected His disciples who misunderstood and who were willing to listen. Therefore, John 6 makes sense only in terms of interpreting it as an instance where it was not an innocent misunderstanding (mistaking a supposed figurative discourse for a literal one), but rather, a deliberate refusal to believe (understanding but not accepting).

The argument hinges on the clear distinction between how Jesus talked to open-minded and closed-minded people, and between how He talked to disciples and the masses. It’s beyond ludicrous to think that Jesus would have allowed anyone to stop being His disciple based on a misunderstanding of supposed figurative or symbolic language for literal. He would have corrected them.

Not explaining because He knew it would be futile is perfectly consistent with His behavior in other such scenarios. The disciples were constantly misunderstanding Jesus, and He corrected and educated them over and over.

We know that Jesus thought this about them because of what He said: “Do you take offense at this?” (John 6:61; meaning, of course, that they did, because He knew their hearts). Again, look how their questioning is described:

John 6:64 “But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.

Language of not believing and betrayal doesn't apply to misunderstandings. Therefore, it makes no sense to think that He let them stop being His disciples based on a supposed misunderstanding.

Jesus tells His disciples what His parables mean, but not the larger crowds. This is explicitly stated in Matthew 13:10-11 and Luke 8:9-10. And note that the “disciples” were not just the Twelve, but included also at least the “seventy” mentioned in Luke 10:1 ff.: sent out to preach the gospel and heal the sick (10:9) and to cast out demons (10:17).

Jesus “rejoiced” upon their enthusiastic report and thanked His Father, “that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes . . .” (10:21): language quite similar to the parables being understood by disciples and not all the masses at large.

If we “fast forward,” then, to John 6, who is being referred to? It is “His disciples” (three times: 6:60-61, 66). Jesus revealed the inner secrets and deeper teachings of the gospel of the kingdom to His disciples. That is who these people are.

Therefore, He would surely have revealed this teaching to these disciples who deserted Him if they had merely misunderstood it. But He did not, because He knew that they understood, but were hardhearted.

What they rejected was eucharistic realism. It requires more faith than symbolism or mystical, spiritual presence. They didn’t yet have it, and they decided not to try to stick around in order to get it. They had had enough.

I would like to say one more thing because I want to keep my thoughts more in line with Catholic teaching. In John 6 v. 63, where Jesus said, “It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail.”, the notes from the NAB say that this is “probably not a reference to the eucharistic body of Jesus but to the supernatural and natural, as in Jn 3:6.” This makes sense because the sacrifice of Christ, the death of His body and the shedding of His blood, accomplished the forgiveness of the sins of the whole world.

Posted by Alexander on Sunday, Dec, 10, 2017 12:54 PM (EDT):

To Wes, Thank you for the reference. I will certainly look it up. God bless you and your family.

Posted by Wes on Saturday, Dec, 9, 2017 10:03 PM (EDT):

Alexander,
Thanks for the comment. If you are interested, here are both a written and a TV interview with Marcus Grodi: https://chnetwork.org/?s=vincent. What a blessing to have been drawn to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church established by Jesus Christ.

Posted by Alexander on Friday, Dec, 8, 2017 7:49 PM (EDT):

To Wes, Thank you for that wonderful story about you and your son’s experience with the Eucharist. I have noticed that the Catholic Church is truly rich, spiritually and in it’s traditions and practices. Experiencing a deep emotional and spiritual feeling must be a very encouraging and powerful thing. I can say that when I started to petition Mary for her prayers and received positive responses, it was a spiritual and emotional experience for me. When I look at her image on the wall, I feel her presence. I look at Christ’s image also because I know Mary’s pointing me to her Son.

Posted by Alexander on Friday, Dec, 8, 2017 7:27 PM (EDT):

To C-Marie, I always appreciate your comments. Thank you. It is not my intention to be rebellious or stubborn in my limited understanding. I can accept the teaching on transubstantiation because of the Catholic Church’s authority. I realize I will not fully understand everything I want to in this life, but I want to give it a good try. I like the way you think. God bless you.

Posted by Wes on Friday, Dec, 8, 2017 5:59 PM (EDT):

Dave, when I was a Protestant, I had an innate ability (without ever studying any Catholic theology) to recognize the utter stupidity of the Real Presence. Since becoming Catholic I have become stupid enough to believe and be blessed by the real presence.

Posted by Wes on Friday, Dec, 8, 2017 5:55 PM (EDT):

Alexander, as a convert to the Catholic Church, I can attest to both the powerful emotional and spiritual impact of receiving the Most Holy Sacrament. While traveling in the Minnesota wilderness a few of years ago with my then seventeen-year-old son, I asked him if he had noticed anything different between his spiritual experiences being a Baptist versus being a Catholic. He responded, “The Catholic Church services are really different because they are so reverent and worshipful, but probably most important is that when we had communion at the Baptist Church, it only tasted like stale crackers and Welch’s grape juice.”
Not being given to emotive elucidation, he stopped there and only when pressed to explain what he meant, did he go on to say, “At the Catholic Church the wafer doesn’t have a flavor but I have a really deep spiritual or emotional experience every time I participate in communion. It leaves an intense emotional or spiritual feeling within me every time.”
Not being given to emotional spirituality or mysticism either, I too, have to say, “Ditto for me!” When I take communion as a Catholic I have a powerful, simultaneous, spiritual and emotional awareness of both how unworthy I am to be receiving the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ and how blessed I am to be being made over in His image in a corporeal manner as well as a spiritual manner. It is difficult to avoid tears each and every time.

Posted by C-Marie on Friday, Dec, 8, 2017 3:39 PM (EDT):

Jesus gave to us the revelation that His Body Is Real Food and His Blood Is Real Drink, therefore, yes, partaking of His Body and Blood truly feeds us. The substance of both the bread and wine is changed to Jesus’ actual, real Body and Blood, with the accidents of bread and wine remaining. And that is what transubstantiation of the Eucharist is. So we either receive the revelation that God gave to,us or not. Our understanding is not of any matter here. Simply accept it is true, believe Him and His words, because Jesus said it. God bless, C-Marie

Posted by GregB on Friday, Dec, 8, 2017 12:45 PM (EDT):

There is a field called textual criticism that involves the study of manuscripts. It is my understanding that the Bible has a manuscript record that is as good as, if not better, than other manuscript records of antiquity.

Posted by Alexander on Friday, Dec, 8, 2017 10:53 AM (EDT):

I did a little research recently on what the Catholic Church means by transubstantiation. What follows is what I learned: When the bread and wine are consecrated they become the actual body and blood of Christ materially. The bread and wine still manifest as bread and wine to the senses, but the underlying material substance of that bread and wine is the same substance as the body and blood of Christ when He walked on earth. Since it is the body and blood of Christ it has all the attributes of Christ: his humanity and divinity. What I would like to know is, if the bread and wine are received worthily, does it impart to you some further strength to live a holy life in your flesh that you would not have otherwise?

Posted by Alexander on Thursday, Dec, 7, 2017 6:04 PM (EDT):

I would like to edit my post of Dec, 6, 2017 12:14 PM (EST). I would like to remove “Not taking Jesus’ words literally may not be the only problem” and replace it with the following: [That they were shocked at the idea of literally eating Christ’s flesh and drinking his blood may not be the only problem] If that was the only problem, Christ could have explained to them the need and necessity for it, which could have made a difference. I think what Christ saw in those disciples that turned away was a reluctance to accept the need for a crucified Christ.

Posted by Alexander on Wednesday, Dec, 6, 2017 1:14 PM (EDT):

The book of John may indeed be a less literal gospel account, but, as part of the Scriptures, it is authoritative for teaching and doctrine. The key is to have a correct interpretation(s). I put it this way because the same Scripture can convey more than one meaning or message which do not contradict each other. For example, one can accept the Church’s teaching on transubstantiation when interpreting John 6. At the same time, there is a further meaning to the disciples turning away from Jesus’ saying that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life. Not taking Jesus’ words literally may not be the only problem; they are also rejecting the need for Christ’s sacrifice in the first place. In 1 Corinthians 1 v. 23, Paul writes, “but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles…”

Posted by Fr Peter Morello on Tuesday, Dec, 5, 2017 5:48 PM (EDT):

Response to Post by Mike on Tuesday, Dec, 5, 2017 3:36 PM.
Michael you are correct that no one can reasonably presume that Evangelists followed Jesus around with notepads especially when we consider the lengthy Priestly Prayer. It is however more theological than poetic. It’s precision underlines the precise role of Christ as the One Mediator between God and Man. What it reveals if we have the faith to accept the Gospels as the revealed word of God is that it is the Holy Spirit who guides the Evangelist John the Apostle. Similarly Jesus was alone in the Garden of Gethsemane when he experienced His agony. All of what was written was inspired directly as with the priestly prayer or indirectly when the Evangelists recalled their own experiences, gathered pericopies, accounts from other sources and witnesses, and gave credibility to moral principles already being lived by the Christian community that confirmed Christ’s teaching.

Posted by Mike on Tuesday, Dec, 5, 2017 4:36 PM (EDT):

I think it is a bit of a stretch to proclaim as “hard evidence” any of the attributions to Jesus in the Gospel of John. Knowing what we know about the time that elapsed between Jesus’ death, and the authorship of John (as much as 70 years), to claim certainty of quotation ignores the very real “hard evidence” that John is more poetry than prose. The language of Jesus in John is certainly not the language of Jesus in Mark, a decidedly earlier documentation of Jesus’ life and ministry. Why? Because the author of John isn’t trying to convey narrative facts of Jesus life, he is trying to convey a doctrinal interpretation of his life and its meaning. I have no issue with anyone who chooses to believe. That is their prerogative. But, let’s at least be intellectually honest about the fact that John’s gospel is not taken from any type of recorded transcript of Jesus’ actual words.

Posted by Fr Peter Morello on Tuesday, Dec, 5, 2017 11:30 AM (EDT):

As I spoke the words of consecration this morning as at every offering of the Body and Blood my faith assured me He was present “In a most excellent way” (Paul VI on the Eucharist). An inner sense something aligned with faith and deeply spiritual was realized with conviction. Transubstantiation is Thomas Aquinas’ word that best expresses what the human intellect is capable of. Recently Liturgist Andrea Grillo planning an Ecumenical Mass expressed the error that seems prevalent among distinguished prelates like Cardinal Gerhard Mueller and the Pontiff. Mueller said words to the effect that the terminology used for the Eucharist particularly transubstantiation is archaic implying improvement. Pope Francis in a sermon at Casa Santa Marta said words to the effect “When Christ spoke of his body and blood he referred to the offering of his body, the shedding of his blood on the Cross”. Some seize that as implying denial of the real Presence. I can’t say it does, however he often gives us cause for concern elsewhere. Luther despite his vulgarities was a profound thinker. One need only read his extant works compiled in Kingston Siggins. Luther aware of the doctrine said Christ is not present in the bread and wine but under. The actual word sub means under stantia means standing or present as under. Nevertheless Transubstantiation refers to an act within as when form signs itself on matter. The act of form realizes bread within the material [a metaphysical principle]. Now transubstantiation realizes something beyond the act of form on matter because it transcends the metaphysical insofar as its principles. Andrea Grillo Liturgist for an ecumenical Mass says “Transubstantiation is not a dogma, and as an explanation of the Eucharist it has its limits. For example it contradicts metaphysics”. Unwittingly he was right since it does transcend metaphysics because God performs a miracle of love transforming the act of the form into his own act of existence or esse. And Grillo incompetent denies the dogmatic basis of our faith that Jesus Christ is really present. That Real Presence can only occur if what the senses understand as bread and wine, the qualities of both—and likewise only be understood correctly if the very qualities of bread and wine [unlike Luther’s distortion of the Eucharist as a kind of “standing beneath” the consecrated Host], that is the entire substance as it appears to the Laity in the pews and in my hands at the consecration is the whole substance of the living Jesus Christ.

Posted by Dave Armstrong on Tuesday, Dec, 5, 2017 2:09 AM (EDT):

I have made this argument about the interpretation of John 6 at greater length and in greater depth on my blog:
*
John 6: Literal Eucharist Interpretation (Analogical Cross-Referencing and Insufficient Counter-Arguments)
*
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2015/11/john-6-literal-eucharist-interpretation.html
*
John 6, the Eucharist, & Parables (Dialogue)
*
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2016/05/john-6-the-eucharist-parables-dialogue.html
*
John 6 & Lack of Faith in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist as a Parallel to Doubting Disciples
*
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2015/11/john-6-lack-of-faith-in-the-real-presence.html

Posted by Alexander on Tuesday, Dec, 5, 2017 12:41 AM (EDT):

Even though a literal interpretation of the bread and wine becoming Christ’s body and blood is not obvious to me in the reading of the Scriptures, I will accept on faith the Catholic Church’s long-standing teaching on transubstantiation because of the authority of the Church.

Posted by Peter Aiello on Monday, Dec, 4, 2017 11:51 PM (EDT):

In verse 62 of John 6 Jesus asks: “What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?” If Jesus ascends, how can they eat His flesh and have life in them? Then He goes on to say in verse 63: “It is the spirit that quickeneth [gives life]; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”
In Romans 8:10-11, Paul provides the answer: “And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.”
Christ’s words were not fulfilled before Pentecost. The apostles could not fully comprehend what Jesus said even when it was explained to them because Christ’s Spirit was made available at Pentecost, and not before.

Posted by Alexander on Monday, Dec, 4, 2017 11:14 PM (EDT):

I agree that Jesus was speaking to His disciples: John 6 v. 60 says, “Then many of his disciples who were listening said, ‘This saying is hard; who can accept it?’” However, I am not so sure that Jesus did not give them an explanation. As part of His reply to them, Jesus said, “It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” (John 6 v. 63). Someone could interpret this to mean that He is not talking about eating His flesh and drinking His blood literally. What He could be saying is that what will give you life is believing and accepting His sacrifice for you, which was accomplished by the death of His body and the shedding of His blood. Maybe what they were not accepting was the need for Christ’s sacrifice in the first place. I know what I am saying is not going to change the Catholic Church’s teaching. All I am saying is that a literal interpretation of eating His flesh and drinking His blood is not that obvious to me.

Posted by C-Marie on Monday, Dec, 4, 2017 9:49 PM (EDT):

Thank you so much for the biblical references!! A joy to read again. God bless, C-Marie

Posted by Brad Bigam on Monday, Dec, 4, 2017 5:44 PM (EDT):

I get what you are saying. However, I don’t think you do.

First, you didn’t apply the rest of the chapter. 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
The point is that the Spirit is the one who gives life. He is obviously talking spiritually about eating his flesh.

Second, Look at Mark 9:38-41. John said to Him, “Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in Your name, and we tried to stop him because he wasn’t following us.” “Don’t stop him,” said Jesus, “because there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name who can soon afterward speak evil of Me. 40 For whoever is not against us is for us. 41 And whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because of My name,since you belong to the Messiah—I assure you: He will never lose his reward.

If there is supposed to be only the catholic church under the pope, why didn’t Jesus tell the disciples “what you should have done, instead of rebuking them is to bring them to the one true group of disciples who will become the one true church”.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won't publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.